Finegold v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 01 February 1965 |
| Citation | 22 A.D.2d 447,256 N.Y.S.2d 358 |
| Parties | Aaron FINEGOLD and Blanche Finegold, Appellants, v. Alva LEWIS, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Arthur Bernknopf, New York City, for appellants.
Flood & Cartiglia, New York City, for respondent; Wm. C. Mattison, Brooklyn, and Michael Caputo, Brooklyn, of counsel.
Before BELDOCK, P. J., and UGHETTA, CHRIST, BRENNAN and HOPKINS, JJ.
It is provided in the new disclosure statute (CPLR 3101) that '* * * unless the court finds that the material [sought] can no longer be duplicated because of a change in conditions and that withholding it will result in injustice or undue hardship * * * any writing or anything created by or for a party or his agent in preparation for litigation' shall not be obtainable by an adverse party.
The principal question here presented is whether a defendant's written statement to his insurer is 'in preparation for litigation' . The statement sought was made by the defendant prior to the commencement of this action on February 5, 1964. Plaintiffs seek the statement in an effort to find therein admissions by the defendant or inconsistencies with his subsequent testimony in his pretrial examination.
The statement is not available for discovery under the statute (CPLR 3101). The statement was given by an insured to his insurer, who is a defendant in a very real sense, as part of the latter's preparation for trial, should a trial ensue. The relative dates of the delivery of the statement and of the commencement of the action are immaterial.
We are not here concerned with discoverability of a report made in the regular course of business by an employee to his employer (cf. Bloom v. New York City Transit Authority, 20 A.D.2d 687, 246 N.Y.S. 414; nor with the admissibility in evidence of such a report (cf. Lonigro v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 22 A.D.2d 918, 255 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1964).
By the same token, Special Term's denial of discovery of the report of the damage to plaintiffs' automobile, furnished to the insurer by the latter's expert, must be sustained .
The order should be affirmed, without costs.
Order affirmed, without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winston v. Mangan
...had been received, is not shielded from disclosure. See, Kandell v. Tocher, 22 A.D.2d 513, 515, 256 N.Y.S.2d 898, 900; Finegold v. Lewis, 22 A.D.2d 447, 256 N.Y.S.2d 358; Weisgold v. Kiamesha Concord, Inc., 51 Misc.2d 456, 273 N.Y.S.2d Third, the shield from disclosure does not apply where ......
-
Blasi v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New York, Inc.
...are conditionally exempt from disclosure underKandel v. Tocher, supra, 22 A.D.2d 513, 256 N.Y.S.2d 898, and Finegold v. Lewis, 22 A.D.2d 447, 256 N.Y.S.2d 358 (2d Dept.1965). The court added "there is no indication that the Legislature, in enacting CPLR 3101 (subd. [g] ), intended to obviat......
-
Colbert v. Home Indem. Co.
...or (d) as attorney's work product or material prepared for litigation. This situation is distinguishable from that in Finegold v. Lewis, 22 A.D.2d 447, 256 N.Y.S.2d 358, 2nd Dept., 2/1/65. In the case at bar the defendants were working, presumably, for and on behalf of the plaintiff in gath......
-
Vogl v. Joyce Kilmer Realty Corp.
...the weight of current appellate authority appears to be that the rule enunciated in 1965 by the Second Department in Finegold v. Lewis, 22 A.D.2d 447, 256 N.Y.S.2d 358, and by the First Department in Kandel v. Tocher, 22 A.D.2d 513, 256 N.Y.S.2d 898, has survived the enactment of subdivisio......